Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40621837›Full record

ReviewCurrent opinion in critical care2025

Role of artificial intelligence in ICU therapeutic decision-making for severe infections.

Daniele Roberto Giacobbe, Antonio Vena, Matteo Bassetti

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Current opinion in critical care, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Daniele Roberto GiacobbeDepartment of Health Sciences (DISSAL), University of Genoa.
Antonio VenaDepartment of Health Sciences (DISSAL), University of Genoa.
Matteo BassettiDepartment of Health Sciences (DISSAL), University of Genoa.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purpose of reviewTo discuss current and future role of artificial intelligence in predicting severe infections and supporting decisions on antibiotic treatment in critically ill patients in intensive care units (ICU), focusing in particular on some relevant conceptual changes compared to classical clinical reasoning. RECENT

findingsSeveral studies have evaluated the ability of machine learning techniques for severe infection prediction, while other studies have explored the potential of large language models (LLM)-based tools to assist clinicians in deciding which antimicrobial agent(s) to prescribe to patients with severe infections. SUMMARY: The support of artificial intelligence for infection prediction and antimicrobial prescribing has shown the potential to improve the treatment of severe infections in ICU. However, the limited number of studies focused on ICU should be highlighted, along with the need to thoroughly address the issue of patients' privacy and to improve the ethical and legal frameworks for decision accountability, as well as the transparency and quality of training data. A standardized approach to the accuracy-interpretability trade-off would also be essential to outline a correct and shared approach both for the future conduct of studies and for the interpretation of their evidence for clinical practice.

Indexed as

Anti-Bacterial AgentsArtificial IntelligenceClinical Decision-MakingCritical CareIntensive Care UnitsCritical IllnessDecision Support Systems, ClinicalHumansMachine LearningAnti-Bacterial Agentsantimicrobial prescribingartificial intelligenceintensive carelarge language modelsmachine learning

Identifiers

PMID40621837
PMCPMC12573687

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.